Which is more important: macros or calories?

I'm trying to eat exactly at my calorie goal but I find that the closer I get to the calories my macros start going over, say carbs, by as much as 20g and then I totally freak out and eat too little the next day cause seeing the macros in red freaks me out.
Is it more important to stay below your macros or eat at your calorie goal (especially if your calorie goal is kinda low for now)

In order of importance...

1) Achieving calorie goal (this will dictate weight gained or lost)
2) Maintaining sufficiently high protein intake (this will do most of what's possible on the dietary side to insure that "weight loss" is actually "fat loss" and not "muscle and fat loss")
3) Eating a balance of carbs/fat that leaves you satiated (feeling full, not wanting). This can be fairly individual, and spans everything from low carb to low fat.

Assuming those 3 are in place, just make sure you're lifting weights (goes with #2 above to make your weight loss fat loss, avoiding muscle loss) and doing as much cardio as you need/want for your general health and perhaps for a bit extra calories burned.

So, to answer your question, if you're already exercising and eating enough protein, it's really about your total calorie intake, so don't sweat the small stuff (i.e. going over in fat or carbs - it's the total calories dictating the direction you're moving).

Loss of muscle mass is usually the result of not providing a resistance training program and adequate calories. Eating to low in calories would result in loss. Also it's not like someone is going to eat 100% carbs or 100% protein or 100% fats.

This is true, but that's why I put calories at #1 and mentioned the importance of resistance training in my post. The idea with protein is simply that you want "enough," as, calories aside, it can have an impact on the composition of your weight loss (i.e. losing fat vs. fat + muscle). How much is enough? This is a subject of debate, but the best numbers I'm aware of for somebody engaged in resistance training from the research is ~1.7 grams per kg of bodyweight. The easiest rule of thumb is 1 gram of protein per pound of LEAN body weight (i.e. non-fat mass).

For a person who weighs 150 lbs with 100 lbs of lean mass, that would be 100 grams of protein per day, as a simple example.

Yes i understand where you're coming from. I know a few vegans who lift and look absolutely great, they're lucky if they get in 60g of protein. I seen studies that support .48g per LBM that's roughly half of LBM. If someone has the LBM of 140lbs that is 70g of protein.

I have been saying "protein is over rated for a while" I am glad to see a vegan bodybuilder saying the same thing i have been saying. When he's asked where he gets his protein this is his reply

" protein although important is way overrated, especially by newcomers. I do say to them, also, that the energy that makes the muscle contract and push the weight comes mainly from carbs or fats not protein."

The article : http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/?page=bio_avi

pics

In order of importance...

1) Achieving calorie goal (this will dictate weight gained or lost)
2) Maintaining sufficiently high protein intake (this will do most of what's possible on the dietary side to insure that "weight loss" is actually "fat loss" and not "muscle and fat loss")
3) Eating a balance of carbs/fat that leaves you satiated (feeling full, not wanting). This can be fairly individual, and spans everything from low carb to low fat.

he may be vegan , but dudes well jacked on thousands of calories and probably 20+ years of training ... eat ur protein ppl ffs

Assuming those 3 are in place, just make sure you're lifting weights (goes with #2 above to make your weight loss fat loss, avoiding muscle loss) and doing as much cardio as you need/want for your general health and perhaps for a bit extra calories burned.

So, to answer your question, if you're already exercising and eating enough protein, it's really about your total calorie intake, so don't sweat the small stuff (i.e. going over in fat or carbs - it's the total calories dictating the direction you're moving).

Loss of muscle mass is usually the result of not providing a resistance training program and adequate calories. Eating to low in calories would result in loss. Also it's not like someone is going to eat 100% carbs or 100% protein or 100% fats.

This is true, but that's why I put calories at #1 and mentioned the importance of resistance training in my post. The idea with protein is simply that you want "enough," as, calories aside, it can have an impact on the composition of your weight loss (i.e. losing fat vs. fat + muscle). How much is enough? This is a subject of debate, but the best numbers I'm aware of for somebody engaged in resistance training from the research is ~1.7 grams per kg of bodyweight. The easiest rule of thumb is 1 gram of protein per pound of LEAN body weight (i.e. non-fat mass).

For a person who weighs 150 lbs with 100 lbs of lean mass, that would be 100 grams of protein per day, as a simple example.

Yes i understand where you're coming from. I know a few vegans who lift and look absolutely great, they're lucky if they get in 60g of protein. I seen studies that support .48g per LBM that's roughly half of LBM. If someone has the LBM of 140lbs that is 70g of protein.

I have been saying "protein is over rated for a while" I am glad to see a vegan bodybuilder saying the same thing i have been saying. When he's asked where he gets his protein this is his reply

" protein although important is way overrated, especially by newcomers. I do say to them, also, that the energy that makes the muscle contract and push the weight comes mainly from carbs or fats not protein."

The article : http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/?page=bio_avi

pics

For every vegan bodybuilder who suggests that protein intake is relatively unimportant, you can probably find literally 100 times that number of non-vegan bodybuilders who would suggest the opposite. Everyone is speaking from their experience, of course, but this is what makes anecdotal evidence difficult to analyze - we have no real way of differentiating cause from effect, or making recommendations based solely on what people observed to seemingly work in themselves. Too many variables for which we have no control.

The recommendations I make are usually in line with my understanding of the research, as research does not have this shortcoming (or, stated more accurately, has less shortcomings than relying on anecdotal evidence - nothing is perfect). I hope it also goes without saying that these are just my opinions, and I certainly respect if you or others have different ones than me.

In order of importance...

1) Achieving calorie goal (this will dictate weight gained or lost)
2) Maintaining sufficiently high protein intake (this will do most of what's possible on the dietary side to insure that "weight loss" is actually "fat loss" and not "muscle and fat loss")
3) Eating a balance of carbs/fat that leaves you satiated (feeling full, not wanting). This can be fairly individual, and spans everything from low carb to low fat.

Weight loss - calories
Body composition and general well being - macros
Ideally you aim for both

Can i ask this question; say you eat 1000cals and meet the 1 pound of lbm of protein or above and do heavy strength training you will not lose muscle mass but mostly fat percentage? Assuming you have energy to still do resistance training

Can i ask this question; say you eat 1000cals and meet the 1 pound of lbm of protein or above and do heavy strength training you will not lose muscle mass but mostly fat percentage? Assuming you have energy to still do resistance training

thats not how it works , u wont have near enough energy via calories to maintain your bodies lean muscle mass ... your resting metabolic rate alone uses more than 1000 calories. to answer the question u will lose both FAT AND MUSCLE

I understand the energy part but i asked because i recently read about Lyle Mcdonald body recomposition plan and saw before and after pictures and people losing body fat and testimonies, I dont think its a lifestyle but targeted to lose the stubborn fat if in a stall

its basically based on a 1000cal or lrss and adding fish oil supplement and caffeine and heavy lifting, lots of people who ahve tried it have lost the body fat and retained muscle and looked more "ripped" then before.......i wanted t find out if it is least possible

In order of importance...

1) Achieving calorie goal (this will dictate weight gained or lost)
2) Maintaining sufficiently high protein intake (this will do most of what's possible on the dietary side to insure that "weight loss" is actually "fat loss" and not "muscle and fat loss")
3) Eating a balance of carbs/fat that leaves you satiated (feeling full, not wanting). This can be fairly individual, and spans everything from low carb to low fat.

Assuming those 3 are in place, just make sure you're lifting weights (goes with #2 above to make your weight loss fat loss, avoiding muscle loss) and doing as much cardio as you need/want for your general health and perhaps for a bit extra calories burned.

So, to answer your question, if you're already exercising and eating enough protein, it's really about your total calorie intake, so don't sweat the small stuff (i.e. going over in fat or carbs - it's the total calories dictating the direction you're moving).

Can i ask this question; say you eat 1000cals and meet the 1 pound of lbm of protein or above and do heavy strength training you will not lose muscle mass but mostly fat percentage? Assuming you have energy to still do resistance training

thats not how it works , u wont have near enough energy via calories to maintain your bodies lean muscle mass ... your resting metabolic rate alone uses more than 1000 calories. to answer the question u will lose both FAT AND MUSCLE

I understand the energy part but i asked because i recently read about Lyle Mcdonald body recomposition plan and saw before and after pictures and people losing body fat and testimonies, I dont think its a lifestyle but targeted to lose the stubborn fat if in a stall

its basically based on a 1000cal or lrss and adding fish oil supplement and caffeine and heavy lifting, lots of people who ahve tried it have lost the body fat and retained muscle and looked more "ripped" then before.......i wanted t find out if it is least possible

I have done the RFL(Rapid Fat Loss Plan) by lyle Mcdonald, it's pure crap. I was starving for 5 weeks, lost 8lbs in a week then stalled out for 4 months. I said "screw this" i had 2 cheat dsays to recover. I did recover well, i recovered up to 6lbs. I only lost 2lbs in 5 weeks. I mostly lost water and glycogen.

Can i ask this question; say you eat 1000cals and meet the 1 pound of lbm of protein or above and do heavy strength training you will not lose muscle mass but mostly fat percentage? Assuming you have energy to still do resistance training

thats not how it works , u wont have near enough energy via calories to maintain your bodies lean muscle mass ... your resting metabolic rate alone uses more than 1000 calories. to answer the question u will lose both FAT AND MUSCLE

I understand the energy part but i asked because i recently read about Lyle Mcdonald body recomposition plan and saw before and after pictures and people losing body fat and testimonies, I dont think its a lifestyle but targeted to lose the stubborn fat if in a stall

its basically based on a 1000cal or lrss and adding fish oil supplement and caffeine and heavy lifting, lots of people who ahve tried it have lost the body fat and retained muscle and looked more "ripped" then before.......i wanted t find out if it is least possible

I have done the RFL(Rapid Fat Loss Plan) by lyle Mcdonald, it's pure crap. I was starving for 5 weeks, lost 8lbs in a week then stalled out for 4 months. I said "screw this" i had 2 cheat dsays to recover. I did recover well, i recovered up to 6lbs. I only lost 2lbs in 5 weeks. I mostly lost water and glycogen.

You were doing it wrong.

I was one out of a group of about 6 of the most experienced, educated people on MFP. We all got really crappy results.

I'm trying to eat exactly at my calorie goal but I find that the closer I get to the calories my macros start going over, say carbs, by as much as 20g and then I totally freak out and eat too little the next day cause seeing the macros in red freaks me out.
Is it more important to stay below your macros or eat at your calorie goal (especially if your calorie goal is kinda low for now)

Can i ask this question; say you eat 1000cals and meet the 1 pound of lbm of protein or above and do heavy strength training you will not lose muscle mass but mostly fat percentage? Assuming you have energy to still do resistance training

thats not how it works , u wont have near enough energy via calories to maintain your bodies lean muscle mass ... your resting metabolic rate alone uses more than 1000 calories. to answer the question u will lose both FAT AND MUSCLE

I understand the energy part but i asked because i recently read about Lyle Mcdonald body recomposition plan and saw before and after pictures and people losing body fat and testimonies, I dont think its a lifestyle but targeted to lose the stubborn fat if in a stall

its basically based on a 1000cal or lrss and adding fish oil supplement and caffeine and heavy lifting, lots of people who ahve tried it have lost the body fat and retained muscle and looked more "ripped" then before.......i wanted t find out if it is least possible

I have done the RFL(Rapid Fat Loss Plan) by lyle Mcdonald, it's pure crap. I was starving for 5 weeks, lost 8lbs in a week then stalled out for 4 months. I said "screw this" i had 2 cheat dsays to recover. I did recover well, i recovered up to 6lbs. I only lost 2lbs in 5 weeks. I mostly lost water and glycogen.

You were doing it wrong.

I was one out of a group of about 6 of the most experienced, educated people on MFP. We all got really crappy results.

That's quite an assertion for someone who is still losing weight. I suppose its possible but to challenge Lyle and then claim this while having "50 pounds to go", I gotta think that's one heck of an ego you got there.

Hmmm okay ...

in one book he wrote forgot which one. He said to lose weight multiply your weight(body weight) by a number 10-15. In another an article he said multiply your weight by 12-16 to lose weight.

IF you read RFL closely, you have to take a break after the cycle. So lets say you're over weight and take 2 months after a cycle.
The results are the same(assuming you get some with RFL) if you lose wait consistently or do it his way.

For example if I lose 15lbs in a month doing RFL I would have to take a 2 month break. That's 3 months total to lose 15lbs. I could just lose 1-2lbs a week and get the same results.

Another one, he wrote an entire article how you can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time. In his lecture of "Applied Nutrition For Mixed sports" He says "you can add muscle and lose fat at the same time, I wrote a book on it. It's called Ultimate Diet 2.0"

I guess you missed the 138lbs I lost. Your body is a reflection of how much you know. That sounds like the statement you're saying. Since lyle Mcdonald is a skinny little guy that means he knows nothing?